Campaigns Wikia talk:All Points of View
This policy, All Points of View, makes sure that all points of view get a 'fair go' on Campaigns Wikia. --Nkayesmith 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) General - Encouraging All points of view Hi all. Please comment on my policy here, whether or not you agree with my finer points or general idea. I'd love you to help me develop it, but please refrain from making major changes until we discuss them here first! Thanks. --Nkayesmith 10:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Just reorganized the discussion. Hope you don't mind. --Nkayesmith 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ::This seems like a pretty good policy idea. This way we incorporate more viewpoints, making people think. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Not to once again play the pessimist, but I'm concerned about the policy of adding opinions not held by any editors of this wiki. While it's true that all POVs of a diverse population deserve consideration, and we should make every effort to fairly represent them, I'm afraid that opinions added by editors that do not believe them are likely to be misrepresented due to the editor's misunderstanding or, even worse, intentionally misrepresented for the purpose of straw-man arguments against them. Misrepresentation of a point of view, intentional or not, is worse than under-representation. --whosawhatsis? 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :Political decisions are made by those who show up. This wikia cannot articulate all viewpoints, because not all of the people will be contributing content. We must work with what we have, and we must encourage others to participate, but we shouldn't express viewpoints that are not held by editors that actually come here to help build the site. That's why I'm very pleased that Lou franklin has made other contributions beyond the same-sex marraige debate, and I hope he continues. He's just a single example. Chadlupkes 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::I agree, but statements like "The motivation behind this policy is to represent the views of a diverse group of people, even those not on Campaigns Wikia," and "Points of View which are believed, even on consensus, to not be credible or notable will still be included because the Wikia editors are not an accurate sampling of the international population" are problematic because with nobody to defend these arguments, there is no way to know if they are legitimate beliefs or just straw-man arguments (which should not be included). If there is even one person defending a viewpoint, obviously it should not be deleted because the majority disagree, but to say that undefended positions should universally receive the same protection is a bad idea. ::Consider this example. Suppose there is a belief held by a group of people who are not represented among Campaigns Wikia's editors, but someone adds a gross misrepresentation of that belief in order to present an argument against it (a straw-man argument). Suppose that later on, a member of that group joins the site and runs across this argument, immediately seeing the obvious misrepresentation, which nobody actually believes. The logical thing to do would be to correct the false information, but under this policy, this could be construed as suppressing the original (bogus) POV. --whosawhatsis? 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :::Say that Chadlupkes leaves the site, in the middle of a discussion. Does that mean, because there is nobody to defend his point of view, it should be removed? What if an editor points a straw-man argument? He'll be OK with that under APOV. It's only if he says something like, this is the view of the movement such and such, should it be corrected. Maybe I should add a clause about that. --Nkayesmith 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :::If I make a (very rudimentary) article about the Iraq war, and I word it: :::The Iraq War is an illegal war conducted in order to expand America's democratic empire, under the cover of a war to remove Iraq's nonexistant weapons of mass destruction, as George W. Bush feels that America should be the only country with destructive weapons. :::People not used to wikis and blogs have a way of regarding words, printed (on the screen), as fact. Unless, of course, it is said that this is 'opinion' as in a perspectives section. While I am completely happy with George Bush losing a vote, I believe it should be reworded on principle. Under the APOV policy, this is not required. Under the NPOV policy, I would say: :::The Iraq War is an war conducted in order to remove Iraq weapons of mass destruction. believes that it is a morally illegal war. :::and so on... :::While this second sentence might be a fact, that particular party might not be there to defend it's POV. Does that mean it should be removed? Because George Bush is not there to defend his point of view, should the view that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction be removed. It certainly is not a well-supported argument by itself. --Nkayesmith 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::::I don't mean to say that anyone who's not a member doesn't get a voice, what I'm saying is that it would be unfair for you or me to say that George Bush believes that he's (to quote the Blues Brothers) "on a mission from God" and for that statement to have the same protection as if George Bush himself wrote it. If there's a consensus that that POV is bogus, i.e. that George Bush does not really think that, and George Bush isn't around to definitively state whether he does or not (and assuming we don't have a quote from a reliable media source that he made that claim), then I believe that it would be fair to remove it. A wide variety of viewpoints should be encouraged and protected, but I'm concerned that this proposal spreads the net of that protection too wide, to the point that it even protects certain forms of vandalism. --whosawhatsis? 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :::::And my first point? :::::How are you going to tell definately that something is a straw-man argument? I am talking about mainly the perspectives and discussion pages - Background and any statements made on behalf of a notable party cannot be unsourced, I should probably make that clear. But I don't see how anybody can stop someone saying on perspectives: :::::*I'm Jim, 30 years old and a law student. I believe - etc. etc. :::::when he's actually Bob, 8 years old and in Grade 1. :::::You can't source this. So I feel you shouldn't have to source: :::::*My friend Bob opposes the production embryonic stem cells. :::::These arguments must be challenged, and it is through those supporters and detractors that the validity of a POV is determined. It should be fairly obvious if one IP contributes only on one topic two identical points of view - after all, each point of view is nuanced and unique. :::::This policy is all about exposure to more viewpoints, making people think, as Jfingers88 said. Forcing people to think, more like, instead of, upon seeing something new and 'alien', reacting upon instinct and deleting it. :::::I have been discussing this policy with an impartial friend (by that I mean, they are not wikipedia contributors so they don't lean towards wikipedia methods), and the first question this friend asks is: "What is to stop an unjustified point of view from being masqueraded as fact?" A bogus point of view is an unjustified one. And we fix this not by removing it, but by challenging it. Discussion, not deletion. --Nkayesmith 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::Ah, yes, for talk pages and perspectives, there is almost no valid reason to delete anything. Exceptions would be slander and more obvious misrepresentation (not pretending to be Jim, the law student, but if someone says "I'm George W. Bush, and I'm a big fat idiot," that should be removed. But yes, as long as they don't conflict with those rules, any signed statement on pages that are appropriate for signing should not be removed. --whosawhatsis? 03:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :::::::I'll revise. --Nkayesmith 03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::::::I'm not comfortable with the broadness of this proposed policy, but not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I have rolled some of these points into a signed statements policy proposal. --whosawhatsis? 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I am also concerned about the fourth paragraph. To me, it feels like a deliberate attack on the 3RR policy, and at best creates a loophole that allows anyone to unilaterally override a consensus with impunity by claiming that it represents opinion as fact. The 3RR already has a provision for re-opening discussion that provides the same protection without promoting edit wars. The winner of a vote isn't necessarily right, but, while this is not a government, the saying still applies, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." The "representing at least two conflicting points of view" clause is meaningless, because every point of view is nuanced and unique, and there is no way to define how much or on what points there must be conflict between viewpoints for them to fulfill this requirement, other than being unable to agree on anything, including a category (which of course gets us nowhere). --whosawhatsis? 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :Perhaps this is not clear. I'm not trying to deny consensus altogether. Every point of view is unique, but they can still be conflicting. Here's two conflicting POV's: :*Communism is the best form of government. :*Democracy is the best form of government. :Therefore the category should not be, "Alternatives to democracy" as that gives a nod to the 2nd pov. The category should be "forms of government". I should probably should change it to acknowledging the similarities between at least two conflicting points of view. --Nkayesmith 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :We need to understand that not everyone agrees in the same definition of fact. One person's fact may be seen as an opinion by others. Both are points of view. Chadlupkes 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::There are also facts, such as historical facts like the events of the Holocaust, that are disputed to promote political agendas. The language of this proposal requires the differentiation of the two while denying the only means of doing so (consensus). --whosawhatsis? 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) In short, there are major issues with this policy, and I'm not sure that it contributes anything positive that is not already covered by APOV. There may be a few points that could be rolled into that policy, but to be brutally honest, I think that overall this causes more problems than it solves. --whosawhatsis? 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Say that Chadlupkes leaves the site, in the middle of a discussion. Does that mean, because there is nobody to defend his point of view, it should be removed? (I don't believe this has been answered) --Nkayesmith 11:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC) :I believe the signed statements proposal addresses this. And I'm sure someone else would appear to support them. Chadlupkes 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC) :If Chad made a statement statement and there is a consensus that it was a straw-man or otherwise bogus, neither Chad nor anyone who agrees with the statement is around to defend it, and it's not in a signed statement, it should not be protected from removal. That doesn't mean that it gets deleted the minute he steps away from his browser, the point is to acknowledge that bogus opinions that nobody actually believes should not have the same protection as statements that are signed or otherwise defended. One of the many problems with this proposal is that it removes any possibility of dealing with statements that are believed to be of this type. SSP, in conjunction with APOV, defines what should be protected much better than ALLPOV. --whosawhatsis? 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Proposed model for differention between facts and POV's Categories :Well done! I thing we'll get some discussion on the idea that Categories should reflect 'facts' as identified by Wikipedia, especially when Wikipedia is often open to interpretation as much as anything else. The most controversial subject so far here, whether same-sex marraige pages should have the category 'civil rights', is also identified as such on Wikipedia, and I'm sure people object to that as much as anywhere else. Chadlupkes 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ::It was not my intention to make wikipedia the only source for differentiation between Categories and facts (perhaps you could change it to make it clearer?). --Nkayesmith 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Register of articles, and differentiation between articles and talk pages :Hey there. I've thought of another issue: Tone/register of articles. Some articles are written quite colloquially, while others quite formally, which may give undue weightage to either topic. I'm in two minds about this. Do you think it should be incorporated into this/any other policy, and, if so, how? Should a distinction be made between talk pages and articles (I think so), and how should this be implemented? --Nkayesmith 10:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think people should comment on article pages on the article's content and on the talk page on the article's structure or format or other things like that. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :The forums have two sections for people to input, the Soapbox and Essays. Essays is supposed to be for more formal writings. :How should we differentiate between articles and Talk pages? I think people are going to be comfortable speaking their minds on Talk pages, but may through experience in Wikipedia be reluctant to express opinions on article pages. It's going to be a free-for-all for a while until these policy suggestions become solidified. Chadlupkes 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) "Regardless of consensus" :If a fact is considered to bias the reader towards a single viewpoints, it should be altered, '''regardless of consensus', and replaced...'' This clause completely neuters 3RR and allows for never-ending revert wars by encouraging consensus decisions such as those described in 3RR to be unilaterally disregarded. It cannot be allowed to become official policy. None of us are perfect, but if we can't trust the majority's interpretation of the rules, we can't trust anyone's. --whosawhatsis? 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Counter-proposals The following proposals have been made in response to perceived problems with this proposal: *This proposal was drafted as an alternative to Allow Points of View. *Signed Statements Response to this proposal's protection of all points of view, even those that are unsigned, undefended, and likely to be straw-man arguments. *Category policy Response to this proposal's narrow and myopic definition of categories.